733296

research-article2017
REA0010.1177/1747016117733296Research EthicsDatta

Original Article: Empirical

Research Ethics

Decolonizing both researcher

2018, Vol. 14(2) 1­–24
© The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
and research and its sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016117733296
DOI: 10.1177/1747016117733296

effectiveness in Indigenous journals.sagepub.com/home/rea

research

Ranjan Datta
University of Saskatchewan, Canada

Abstract
How does one decolonize and reclaim the meanings of research and researcher, particularly
in the context of Western research? Indigenous communities have long experienced
oppression by Western researchers. Is it possible to build a collaborative research
knowledge that is culturally appropriate, respectful, honoring, and careful of the Indigenous
community? What are the challenges in Western research, researchers, and Western
university methodology research training? How have ‘studies’ – critical anti-racist theory
and practice, cross-cultural research methodology, critical perspectives on environmental
justice, and land-based education – been incorporated into the university to disallow dissent?
What can be done against this disallowance? According to Eve Tuck and K Wayne Yang’s
(2012) suggestion, this article did not use the concept of decolonization as a substitute
for ‘human rights’ or ‘social justice’, but as a demand of an Indigenous framework and a
centering of Indigenous land, Indigenous sovereignty and Indigenous ways of thinking. This
article discusses why both research and researcher increasingly require decolonization so
that research can create a positive impact on the participants’ community, and conduct
research ethically. This article is my personal decolonization and reclaiming story from 15
years of teaching, research and service activities with various Indigenous communities in
various parts of the world. It presents a number of case studies of an intervention research
project to exemplify the challenges in Western research training, and how decolonizing
research training attempts to not only reclaim participants’ rights in the research but also
to empower the researcher. I conclude by arguing that decolonizing research training

Corresponding author:
Ranjan Datta, PhD, University of Saskatchewan, Room 1244, College of Education, 28 Campus
Drive, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, S7N 5A2, Canada.
Email: ranjan.datta@usask.ca

Creative Commons Non Commercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/)
which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original
work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
2 Research Ethics 14(2)

creates more empathetic educators and researchers, transforming us for participants, and
demonstrating how we can take responsibility for our research.

Keywords
decolonization, Indigenous research, researcher responsibilities, Western research

Researchers have a responsibility to cause no harm, but research has been a source of
distress for Indigenous people because of inappropriate methods and practices. (Cochran
et al., 2008: 22)

This article critically discusses some of the important questions while conducting
research with Indigenous communities: What are the challenges in Western
research, researchers, and university research training (Ahmed, 2012)? Who
should and could benefit from the research (Smith, 1999)? What can be done
against this disallowance (Tuck and Yang, 2014)? Whose capacity needs to be
built if Indigenous ways of knowing are to be incorporated into the research design
(Cochran et al., 2008)? Focusing on these questions, this article argues that how
decolonizing research and researcher from the participants’ perspective can posi-
tively re-position both researcher and participants in all aspects of the research
activities.
As I write this article, I am well aware of the term ‘decolonization’ that is often
conflated with anticolonial projects and struggles that re-inscribe the logics of set-
tler colonialism, in particular the re-occupation of Indigenous lands (Tuck and
Yang, 2012). Indigenous scholar Smith (1999) explains the term ‘decolonization’
as a process for conducting research with Indigenous communities that places
Indigenous voices and epistemologies in the center of the research process. In this
article, I use the team ‘decolonization’ according to Indigenous scholars (Denzin
et al., 2008): that decolonization is a continuous process of anti-colonial struggle
that honors Indigenous approaches to knowing the world, recognizing Indigenous
land, Indigenous peoples, and Indigenous sovereignty – including sovereignty
over the decolonization process. I argue that decolonization is an on-going process
of becoming, unlearning, and relearning regarding who we are as a researcher and
educator, and taking responsibilities for participants.
Neither researcher nor research is well defined in Western1 research training.
Much research on Indigenous peoples has been carried out by researchers without
decolonizing their research training. Indigenous scholars Battiste (2001), Kovach
(2010), Lavallée (2009), Smith (1999), Wilson (2008) and others argue that
Western research without decolonization can be referred to as ‘oppression’ towards
Indigenous communities. They also suggest to researchers that, if Western research
does not honor and/or consider decolonization as significant and scientific, it can
Datta 3

lead to economic inequality, displacement, loss of traditional lifestyles, and sig-

nificant damage to many Indigenous communities. Lincoln explains Western
research as the rape model of research, where ‘the researcher comes in, takes what
he [sic] wants, and leaves when he feels like it’ (Lincoln, reported in Beld, 1994).
Smith (1999) explains how decolonizing research training can change both
researcher and research. She suggests that the process of decolonization of research
will help regain control over Indigenous ways of knowing and being, ways in
which research can be used for social justice. Similarly, other Indigenous scholars
– Battiste (2008), Kovach (2010), Lavallée (2009), Tuck and Yang (2014), and
Wilson (2008) – show in their studies that decolonizing research training honors
Indigenous approaches to knowing the world.
It is important to note that this article target does not reject all Western methods
and theories, rather exploring a bridge between Western and Indigenous, which is
appropriate and beneficial for the local community. Indigenous scholar Wilson
suggests that research methods may be borrowed from other paradigms as long as
they fit the ‘ontology, epistemology, and axiology of the Indigenous paradigm’
(Wilson, 2008: 12). He claims that applying a Western methodology in an
Indigenous context may be incompatible because the underlying epistemology of
Western methods and theories is not Indigenous. This article is a call for exploring,
valuing, and using Indigenous knowledge and methods on an equal footing with
Western knowledge and methods, and for integrating Indigenous and Western
methods when appropriate. Through my 15 years of personal decolonization jour-
ney with various Indigenous communities in various parts of the world, I learned
that we as researchers must be respectful and diligent in our implementation of
decolonizing research, paying careful attention to the process and being ready to
acknowledge and make appropriate changes when Western methods or theories
are not appropriate.
The central argument of this article is that decolonizing research training is cul-
turally appropriate and effective for both the participant’s community and the
researcher when conducting research with Indigenous communities. In discussing
this argument, the article examines two key areas: (i) challenges in our Western
disciplinary2 methodological research training; and (ii) the meaning of decoloni-
zation and its effectiveness. These two areas discuss how I have been trained as a
Western researcher and the challenges I faced during my research and personal life
as a researcher. In explaining the effectiveness of decolonization, I explain how
my decolonizing research training contributed both to the continuum redefining
the meaning of research and researcher and to the well-being of the participants’
communities. I conclude by arguing that researchers must recognize the persis-
tence of colonialism, oppression, and domination in systems of Western research
training and seek to include such an ethical understanding in their research
practice.
4 Research Ethics 14(2)

Challenges in Western research training

Although the Western research training has made much progress in recent dec-
ades, many researchers do not receive culturally appropriate research training
for conducting research with Indigenous communities (Battiste, 2017; Cochran
et al., 2008; Smith, 1999). Indigenous scholars suggest that the Western
research training requires adaptation to fit Indigenous contexts (Kovach, 2010;
Simonds and Christopher, 2013; Wilson, 2008). Western research needs sig-
nificant process of decolonization for future research based on lessons learned
from Indigenous community partners who voiced concern over methods of
Western research (Smith, 1999; Tuck and Yang, 2012). However, in Smith’s
(1999) view of decolonizing Western research, this does not mean researchers
should reject all Western methods and theories, as they may be adapted if
deemed appropriate and beneficial by the local community. Critically engag-
ing with challenges in Western research training is a process of exploring a
collaborative space where both participant and researcher benefit from the
research (Wilson, 2008).
The Western research training can be challenging to the Indigenous people, if
research is not culturally appropriate, respectful, honoring, and caring of the local
community. In this section, I explain how my academic research training was
problematic for me as a researcher and how it negatively impacted my partici-
pants’ communities as well as me. I divide Western research training challenges
into three categories: challenges in disciplinary research training, ethnographic
research training, and interdisciplinary research training.

Challenges in disciplinary research training

Disciplines are constituted by defined academic research methods and objects of
study. They include frames of particular theoretical reference, methodological
approaches, topics, theoretical canons, and technologies. Disciplines can also be
seen as subcultures with their own language, concepts, tools, and credentialed
practitioners (Petts et al., 2008: 596). However, the disciplinary form of research
training created many challenges for me as a researcher, including disconnection
from practice, unclear responsibilities towards participants, confused neutral posi-
tion as a researcher, and a strictly academic-based research guideline.

Disconnection from practice. Disconnection between research and practice in

research training can be a significant challenge as a researcher (Datta, 2017). For
instance, during undergraduate and graduate programs the sociological methodo-
logical training was a significant challenge in my research training. In my four
graduate research methodological and methods courses, I learned a number of
important things, including how to critically observe social problems in a structural
Datta 5

process, how to analyze social problems, and how to write projects and theses.
Throughout the methodological training processes we, as student researchers,
were also taught how to: maintain neutrality in our field research, such as during
data collection and data analysis; follow the validity and reliability of collected
data; and find the predictability in our research. We were taught that by remaining
neutral in our research, our research would be valid and predictable. However, I
faced many challenges during my field research as my research training was not
connected with practical life, people practice, and culture. During my undergradu-
ate project and master’s thesis data collection, I had to develop my research objec-
tives with open- and close-ended interview questionnaires, survey forms, and
interview guidelines. Most of the research goals were prefaced through our
research proposal instead of the participants’ practice. I understood that our
research training was not about methodological issues (i.e. qualitative or quantita-
tive) but rather our epistemological position (i.e. the way we want to see ourselves
as researchers and our research findings) (Wilson, 2008). In this training process,
I found that academic research may sometimes have much invisible power over
people practice, including explaining, predicting, and arguing about the partici-
pants’ life, culture, and values.
Participants’ trustful and meaningful engagement in research can be a signifi-
cant challenge for a researcher, and these are generative because they redirect the
focus of research towards processes of power, thus decentering narratives of dam-
age or destruction (Tuck and Yang, 2012). For instance, Eve Tuck and K. Wayne
Yang (2014) discuss three significant challenging situations (i.e. refusal from both
research and participants) which can make research as challenging for the com-
munity – for example: (i) when a research participant refuses to engage in a par-
ticular conversation; (ii) when a researcher refuses to value participants’ knowledge,
culture, and practice; and (iii) when Indigenous sovereignty over their knowledge
is not maintained.

Unclear researcher responsibility. Researcher responsibilities are important to both

researcher and research in Indigenous research; it can be a significant challenge if
researchers are not well trained in their responsibilities (Datta, 2015; Wilson,
2008). In Smith’s (1999) view of research, the researcher should center partici-
pants’ values and follow their protocols. For instance, during my academic pro-
grams, I was trained how to follow researcher responsibility as an academic, but I
was not trained as to who can be a researcher and their responsibilities to their
research participants. I was not prepared, as a researcher, for how to answer par-
ticipants’ questions. For example, during my master’s research in a minority com-
munity an Elder participant asked me, ‘Why are you doing research and for whom?
How can we [participants] benefit from your research?’ I was not trained in how
to answer the Elder’s questions. I knew that the answers I was giving were not
6 Research Ethics 14(2)

enough. I felt that most of my answers were not coming from my heart. I also felt
that my answers were not connected to reality in most cases, and I did not know
what to do. Many times I was not comfortable with my research participants;
many nights I couldn’t sleep for thinking about what I was doing in the name of
academic and professional research. I concluded that sometimes I had had to
deceive my participants in order to meet my academic needs. I realized that
although I needed a degree to get a job or to be a researcher, I should not exploit
my participants. I was unsettled as a researcher. I questioned myself: ‘Is this aca-
demic research all about deceit for our own interest/jobs/purpose?’ With this
researcher-oriented research training, I was dissatisfied with my Western research
training, and it negatively influenced my two years of professional service.

Western forms of neutrality. Neutrality became another significant challenge when

I went to the community3 for my research. During my master’s field research, I
thought I was ready to conduct my research and remain neutral. However, during
my field research with Indigenous communities in Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT),
Bangladesh, the term ‘neutral’ was very confusing for me. I was not sure what the
term meant in field research. My confusion was on how to be neutral when I was
sharing stories as a process of relationship-building. When I was in conversation
with participants, they wanted me to listen to their story with empathy and act on
their issues. I was not clear enough about how I should consider a participant’s
voice in my research. Many times, I thought, ‘Am I going to lose my neutrality as
a researcher if I respond to my participants’ feelings?’ While I was conducting
survey research, participants wanted me to add their questions into my research,
but I was not sure how to do it. Because participants’ questions were important to
them, I was also not sure how I could ignore/reject their questions as a researcher,
but if I accepted participant questions and stories, how was I going to maintain the
validity of neutrality as a researcher? I went back to my research methodology
professor to understand the meaning of neutrality as a researcher. I was told, ‘You
can listen to a participant’s answer/questions, but you cannot respond to it as a
sociology researcher in your report. You need to be free from your personal biases.’
I was not clear enough on my personal biases, so I asked again the meaning of
neutrality to him. I was given an example in my class with other sociology research-
ers who were also ready for their research:
All of you as sociology researchers, you need to be a neutral actor [person] in your research.
You need to strictly follow your research proposal/your research guidelines. If your
participants go beyond your research questions, you should remind them about your research
questions; otherwise, you only need to consider whatever is relevant to your research. You
cannot add your personal reflections and/or participants’ unrelated issues to your research.
If you do so, you will lose your neutrality. It will lose reliability and your research will not
be valid anymore.
Datta 7

The term ‘neutrality’ was confusing to me, but as a young researcher I was not
bold enough to challenge this issue in my research.

Overlooking participants’ cultural protocols. Favoring the academic research protocol

over participants’ cultural protocol was another challenge in my disciplinary
research training (Lavallée, 2009). For example, in my master’s research, the aca-
demic research protocol became a barrier for me as I was not able to consider
participants’ culture-based research protocols in my research. During my discipli-
nary research training, I was trained how to follow my academic protocols regard-
less of participants’ practice, culture, and values. Many times I felt that if I only
followed the academic guidelines in my research, it would not be respectful of my
participants’ culture. I was not respecting my feelings. In my research, I often felt
that I was overlooking participants’ stories and modifying participants’ answers
according to my research questions and/or guidelines. I felt guilty that in most
cases, during my research interview conversation, I was only focusing on my
research guidelines instead of focusing on the participant’s everyday issues. In
some cases, I used to learn about many significant issues that were important for
the community, but I was not able to add these, either because they were not related
to my research objectives or because of my academic research goals.

Challenges in Western ethnographic research training

My Western ethnographic research training in anthropology was a significant chal-
lenge as an Indigenous researcher. Like disciplinary research training, my ethno-
graphic research training could not satisfy my research empathy. When I found that
my sociological research training was not sufficient, I had the opportunity to take
two ethnographic research methodology courses in one of the top-ranking universi-
ties in Norway. In my ethnographic research training, I had opportunities to meet
well-known classical anthropological researchers. I learned many different and
positive ethnographic research techniques from them. For example, I learned eth-
nographic research techniques featuring participant observation in which the
researcher observes and participates in daily life. Study about a particular culture
issue was primarily based on fieldwork. My ethnographic research training in soci-
ology was significantly more in-depth than my sociological training. For example,
I learned that as an anthropological researcher I needed to commit to social justice
and human rights and be actively involved in efforts to assist local communities,
peasant communities, and ethnic minorities. However, I faced two significant chal-
lenges in ethnographic research with discovery and invisible power.

Challenges in discovery. The first significant challenge in my ethnographic research

was with who owned the research findings. For example, one of my mentors (a
8 Research Ethics 14(2)

faculty member) told me during my field research, ‘I did many years of ethno-
graphic study with many Indigenous communities, and I discovered [emphasis
added] many of their issues in my studies.’ For me, this statement of discovery was
not only an individual issue; it was an academic, epistemological issue of ability.
The term ‘discovery’ can be explained as the power to discover community knowl-
edge that is not already owned by the community. I was uncomfortable with this
use of the term ‘discovery’, and discussed it with my community’s Elders and with
other Indigenous communities in Bangladesh, Canada, and Norway. One of the
Elders from our Indigenous community in CHT Bangladesh responded to the term
by stating, ‘I know from my ancestors that knowledge has been practiced in our
Indigenous communities for many centuries; knowledge has been within us and
within our land from long before I born. We cannot discover knowledge; rather,
we learn from our land.’ Similarly, when I asked my mother, she told me, ‘Do not
listen to them [ethnographic researchers]. I learned from my ancestors. My ances-
tors learned from their ancestors that knowledge is here in our land; we just carry
it from one generation to another. We cannot discover anything; we can only learn.’
The last part of this statement: ‘We cannot discover anything; we can only learn’
was significant for me in understanding the challenges in my ethnographic research
training. Another Elder from a Dene First Nation community in Canada said, ‘Our
knowledge comes from our ancestors. I learned from them. If I share our knowl-
edge with you, you should not say that you discovered it. If you do so, it will be
stealing.’

Hierarchical relationships. Being an Indigenous person and working with various

Indigenous communities, I found my ethnographic research training was not
enough. For instance, during my field research in my Anthropology master’s pro-
gram in CHT Bangladesh, I found that although I had been conducting ethno-
graphic study and I am from one of the minority Indigenous families in Bangladesh,
I had more invisible power than my Indigenous participants. During conversations
with Elders and Knowledge-holders, they explained that Western researchers hold
invisible power over Indigenous people, such as selecting research topics, and
deciding how research data are collected and analyzed, and how they are pre-
sented. Both professional and academic Indigenous participant communities
acknowledged that ethnographic challenges in their communities were not prob-
lems related to an individual researcher; rather, the challenges rested on our aca-
demic research training – our fixed Western and academic mindset. I found a
similar concern in Indigenous scholar Tuhiwai Smith’s studies (1999, 2008);
although the Western research was collected for the greater good of serving all
mankind, colonialism was far from being a finished business. Invisible power
practices are embedded within the system, which is about the unequal power of
defining, essentializing, labeling, and thus alienating the other. Smith also
Datta 9

explained that the researcher epistemological issue is significant. Researcher epis-

temology frames the way we see the world, the way we organize ourselves in it,
the questions we ask, and the solutions we seek. Smith believes that research
should set out to make a positive impact on the participant’s community. Cochran
et al. also argue from their study with the Indigenous community that there are
hierarchical relationships between participant and researcher; an Indigenous par-
ticipant explained the meaning of Western research in saying, ‘Researchers are
like mosquitoes; they suck your blood and leave’ (Cochran et al., 2008: 1).
Another challenge I faced during my master’s research with one of the Indigenous
communities in CHT was the participants’ fear of the Western form of ethno-
graphic research. One of the Elders explained why he feared ethnographic research,
by saying, ‘Many ethnographic researchers have come to our Indigenous commu-
nity and did ethnographic research but did not have any positive impact on our
community.’ He explained further, ‘Researchers stayed in our house, lived with us,
learned from us about what we do, how we do, and they wrote our stories as their
discovery. It is stealing our knowledge.’ Another Elder suggested a means of over-
coming this challenge by saying, ‘If your research cannot talk about how we are
facing problems in our everyday lives, why should I engage with your research?’
He also said, ‘Research should be action-oriented so that it can contribute to us
solving our issues. It should focus on our voice instead of only your academic
priorities.’

Challenges in Western interdisciplinary research training

Although the importance of interdisciplinary research training has been widely
recognized, it is still very much concentrated within specific disciplinary areas,
and the integration of interdisciplinary studies has become unusual in traditional
fields of study (Haraway, 2004; Latour, 2004). I also found that despite some suc-
cess in educating the different disciplines to work collaboratively, the degree of
interdisciplinary research training at present is insufficient and sporadic (Datta,
2016, 2017; Latour, 2004). In fact, I found the concept of interdisciplinarity con-
fusing. One of the important challenges during my interdisciplinary research train-
ing was how to overcome dynamic notions of static disciplinary practice. I realized
that research training in my interdisciplinary department did not change its disci-
plinary research approach. My research training was mostly either mutually con-
nected with a core social science or with natural science research training. My
expectation in interdisciplinary research training was to solve and/or understand
the practical challenges from various perspectives. I thought our training focus
would be on the dynamics of community engagement by advocating participation
in community-based projects and service learning. However, in our research train-
ing we were taught how to be more scientific in our research. In fact, it was a
10 Research Ethics 14(2)

similar challenge to the one I faced during my master’s and bachelor’s programs.
In our interdisciplinary research seminar, many disciplinary speakers came and
talked about the importance of their research and how their research was more
promising than others. I acknowledge the significance of disciplined theoretical
and methodological issues, but I did not find a difference from my previous disci-
plinary research training. From my professional and academic research work, I
found that my interdisciplinary research training was not only linked to discipli-
nary research but was interconnected with our static research epistemology. From
my long-time, community-based activities, I learned about many issues that my
interdisciplinary research training could not cover. These omissions included
training on:

•• how to interact with participants;

•• how to build relationships with participants;
•• why we should care about participants’ feelings, relationships;
•• community protocols;
•• who can own the research findings;
•• how to recognize participants’ community needs; and
•• how to share research with participants’ communities.

Challenges from participant perspectives. Western research training became more

problematic when I faced challenges from my participant communities. Cochran
et al. (2008: 1) suggest ‘it is important to consider and understand the reasons
Indigenous people might object to the idea of partnerships with researchers—why
communities are wary or apprehensive’ of the research. Other studies with Indig-
enous communities claim that, historically, research conducted on Indigenous
people has been inappropriate because it has often served to advance the politics
of colonial control (Caldwell et al., 2005; Dodson, 1994).
As a result, Indigenous peoples continue to regard Western research (i.e. research
originating outside of Indigenous communities) with a certain apprehension or
mistrust. For instance, during my PhD research with the Laitu Indigenous com-
munity in Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT), Bangladesh, one of the Knowledge-
holders, Kasamong Pure Khyeng from the Laitu Indigenous community in CHT,
explained how research could be oppression if the researcher did not come from
the participants’ community:
Many researchers have been using our community people, our culture, and knowledge to do
business. For example, lots of student researchers get their academic degree through using our
knowledge. Lots of university and research institute researchers have been making money by
using our traditional knowledge. Lots of NGOs have been getting money from various donor
agencies by selling our traditional knowledge. What have we gotten from these university
student researchers, university and research institute researchers, NGO and government
Datta 11

researchers? I have not seen any benefit from these researchers and their research for me, my
community, and our culture. I see this research as a business making use of our community’s
people, culture, and practice. We are fearful when we hear the word research. It takes our time,
knowledge, and practice for other people’s business and we do not get anything from it; we do
not even know what knowledge has been taken or how it has been used. All we get is a couple
of drinks [tea/coffee]. We do not want this kind of research in our community. We are so
disappointed in any kind of research nowadays. We have not seen any findings from many of
the researchers. Researchers take our knowledge that we shared as friends; they use our
knowledge for their discoveries, funding, and academic degrees. We helped many researchers
in many ways so that they could get the proper information that they were looking for; however,
the researchers did not give us anything.

On a similar issue, another Indigenous Elder asked us why they should participate
in these exploitative forms of research. She said (Anonymous):
Now that you are planning to do research with us, I would like to know what kinds of benefits
we [as a community] will get from your research. Will we get any benefits from your research
at all? We need to know how you as a researcher and your research can be useful to our
community. Can you promise us that you will not be like previous researchers? We want
promises from you and from your research before we get involved with your research. We
would also like to know how you are going to use our knowledge. Who will be the owner of our
knowledge?

All these and many other challenges in my academic and professional research
activities inspired me to rethink who I am as a researcher and my responsibilities
towards my research and research participants, motivating me to decolonize from
the Western form of researcher to a participant-oriented researcher.

Decolonization and its effectiveness

Decolonizing research is a process of conducting research with Indigenous com-
munities that places Indigenous voices and epistemologies in the center of the
research process (Battiste, 2000; Smith, 1999). It critically examines the underly-
ing assumptions that inform the research, and challenges the widely-accepted
belief that Western methods and ways of knowing are the only objective, true sci-
ence. Holding Western beliefs and methods as the true science marginalizes
Indigenous methods and ways of knowing by denigrating them as folklore or
myth. In Smith’s view of decolonizing research, the researcher should center
Indigenous values and follow Indigenous protocols. Decolonization does not mean
researchers should reject all Western methods and theories as they may be adapted
if deemed appropriate and beneficial by the local community. Decolonizing
researchers need to break down the barriers between researcher and subject (par-
ticipants) and deal with emerging ethical issues (Denzin and Norman, 2007).
Indigenous scholar Zavala (2013) explains that decolonization is less about method
12 Research Ethics 14(2)

and more about providing space for Indigenous people and voices. This process
can start by including research ethics for protecting Indigenous knowledge, rela-
tional ethics in research with intimate others, and challenges in ethical research
practice.
Mi’kmaw Indigenous scholar Dr Marie Battiste shared the meanings of decolo-
nization on a CFCR 90.5 Radio program with radio host Jebunnessa Chapola and
me on 12 March 2017. According to Battiste, decolonization has two pillars. First,
we need to understand that ‘our system of education is deeply colonial,’ and decol-
onization is to ‘help people to understand where colonialism came from and …
colonial histories, and unpack these histories from our own perspectives.’ She
said, ‘Education needs to not just be a colonial experience … but it has to be a way
to help people to understand their situation where they are and how they are in an
inequitable situation.’ Secondly, decolonization is ‘recovery from colonial impact,
restoration of Indigenous people’s identities, Indigenous people’s languages,
Indigenous people’s experiences, and all things that we [Indigenous people] need
for restoring us in this country [Canada] which builds in treaties that have been
signed, ignored, marginalized for many, many years in Canada.’
Battiste also explained how decolonization learning can empower researchers,
educators, and others. For her, decolonization is a life-long learning process. It
can inspire us to ask questions: ‘How are we related to the colonization, oppres-
sions? Who are the people who belong to the colonial culture? Who are the peo-
ple benefiting from the oppressive systems? Who is privileged by oppressing
others?’ In decolonization, once we are able to understand historical colonial
legacies of oppression, colonial culture, and colonial impacts, we will be able to
understand our relationship as a researcher. More importantly, in explaining pro-
cesses of empowerment through decolonization, she emphasized not only ‘under-
standing and/or unpacking whiteness, colonization, oppression that belongs with
the kinds of language,’ but also suggests that we need to understand our own
relationships to that. Once we are able to understand the processes of colonization
and our relationships with them, we can find out who we are and what we should
do as researcher and educator. According to her, decolonization is ‘beginning to
understanding that “I got it”. Once we get it, we will not go back to the colonial
process in our research.’ In relation to research with Indigenous communities,
Moje (2000: 25) says, ‘researchers should engage in research not only to produce
knowledge but also to make positive change in the lives of those who participate
in research, change that the participants desire and articulate for themselves’.
In relation to Battiste, Denzin, Norman, and Smith, my decolonization was a
process of ceremony (Wilson, 2008). I enjoyed each step of my decolonization as
researcher. In the following section, I discuss how decolonization training started
in my life, how I was able to refuse colonial research, and how it transformed me
into an anti-colonial, community-based researcher.
Datta 13

Decolonizing researcher
My decolonizing as a researcher started with anti-racist theory and practice, cross-
cultural research methodology, critical investigations, and a land-based approach,
particularly during my interdisciplinary PhD program at the University of
Saskatchewan, Saskatchewan, Canada. I learned how to see and use the term
‘researcher’ rather than use the Western form of researcher. I know that every
decolonization action is a story and each story has power and impacts on who I am
as a researcher (King: 2003). My decolonization stories are neither chronological
nor in the past; rather they are lived, influential, and relational. My stories have a
great deal of influence on my thinking and doing. Sharing my decolonizing stories
can benefit others who are not only conducting research with Indigenous commu-
nities but also seeking social and environmental justice.

Antiracist theory and practice. Understanding antiracist theory and practice was a
significant epistemological shift for me as a researcher. My learning on antiracism
was guided by an Indigenous scholar, Dr. Verna St Denis. Through this theoretical
understanding, I was able to identify, understand, and analyze theories, practices,
and critiques regarding the relationship of colonialism, postcolonialism, racism,
and anti-racism with feminist scholarship. From this educational training, I learned
how to examine the historical, economic, and political processes and practices of
racialization and the ways in which these processes and their effects become
entrenched in our social and educational institutions. Through my learning pro-
cesses I have seen how theories and practices of integrative anti-racist education
and practices are explored, including their application in a variety of workplaces.
For developing this theoretical understanding, I used some strong postcolonial
theories and practices, such as Edward W Said’s Orientalism, Gayatri Chakravorty
Spivak’s Can the Subaltern Speak?, P Gorski’s Savage Unrealities, Z. Leonardo’s
The Color of Supremacy, Homi Bhabha’s The Location of Culture, and Eric Chey-
fitz’s The Poetics of Imperialism.

Cross-cultural learning. Another important part of my decolonizing research training

was learning cross-cultural research methodology and methods, which led me to
rethink who I am as a researcher and my empathy (Becker, 1967). It was guided by
another Indigenous and two-spirited educator, scholar, and activist Dr. Alex Wilson.
For the first time, I had opportunities to self-reflect on ways of unlearning and
relearning (Who am I as researcher? What are my relationships, empathy, and
responsibilities?) (Wilson, 2008). Through this cross-cultural learning, I realized
how to take a political stand in research on behalf of research participants and social
justice, how to make theories and methodologies applicable to Indigenous and cross-
cultural research contexts, and how to do research within Indigenous, relational, and
trans-cultural knowledge frameworks (Becker, 1967; Datta, 2015; Wilson, 2008).
14 Research Ethics 14(2)

Cross-cultural learning as part of decolonization has had a vital impact on me

in terms of how to develop an ethical relationship with my participant community
(Kovach, 2010; Smith, 2009; Wilson, 2008). For example, in my PhD research
with one of the CHT Indigenous communities, we (Indigenous Elders, Knowledge-
holders, youths, and researcher) did not consider hierarchical relationships
amongst ourselves; our main target was to prioritize community knowledge and
voice (Datta et al., 2015). We used participatory action research (PAR) to explore
Indigenous perspectives on land/water, environmental resource management, and
sustainability with the Laitu Khyeng Indigenous community in Bangladesh.
Through our relational accountabilities, I learned that my participants’ research
rights are as important as my own rights, and that my participants’ environmental
well-being and environmental justice are my responsibilities. These forms of
research methodological training helped me to develop a strong understanding of
my research issue and my relationship with my participants’ community.

Critical ethnographic narratives. The third significant theoretical issue was a criti-
cal ethnographic narrative, which was guided by environmental justice scholar
and activist Dr. Marcia McKenzie. It uses a critical lens for understanding colo-
nial and postcolonial place, nature, space, time, and culture. The meanings of
place, nature, and culture are different, complex, and dynamic. We learnt that the
human connection we have with place cannot be denied and has to be a part of
the process of understanding the connections between culture and environment.
Through this learning, I had an opportunity to examine the interconnected rela-
tionships between culture and place through various short ethnographic studies.
I developed my thoughtful and critical engagement with a range of literature and
experiences related to what it means to develop understanding and actions in
regard to the environment. Through exploring a breadth and diversity of sources
in areas such as cultural geography, sociology, philosophy, postcolonial studies,
environmental justice, the arts, and education, we were able to develop a more
in-depth and comprehensive understanding of related fields of inquiry and of
how our research and practice could build on and into our existing work.
Through critical investigation research skills, I learned how to bridge together
recent theoretical trajectories in economic geography, sociology, and interdisci-
plinary studies in order to review and generate research questions and methods
for critical research. This learning developed strong critical and collaborative
writing skills. For instance, in my PhD research we critically examined existing
research literature, government and NGO reports on Indigenous communities,
and selected qualitative methods for community relevance and application to
Indigenous and cross-cultural contexts, as well as developing emerging research
interests, approaches, and skills. Using guidelines from Indigenous Elders and
Knowledge-holders, we critically analyzed existing forest/land management
Datta 15

problems in relation to everyday land-based practices and traditional experiences.

Our critical lens taught me to address the following: How have I been shaped as
who I am today? How do I see myself, my relationships with the land, and my
reciprocity?

Land-based learning. This land-based learning helped me to rebuild my relational

belonging as a researcher. An important aspect of land-based learning as an Indige-
nous person is the concept of positioning (Lowan-Trudeau, 2012): essentially, who
am I and where do I situate myself within my research? In land-based learning, the
land is a significant source of knowledge and understanding and can provide a phys-
ical, social, and spiritual sense of learning. Land-based education provides a decolo-
nization perspective that ‘if colonization is fundamentally about dispossessing
Indigenous peoples from land, decolonization must involve forms of education that
reconnect Indigenous peoples to land and the social relations, knowledges and lan-
guages that arise from the land’ (Wildcat et al., 2014: I). This learning covered topics
such as decolonizing and reclaiming our relationship with the land through explor-
ing the five senses in learning, using art and poetry in ecological learning, decoloniz-
ing place and historic site visits, the history of Aboriginal and settler peoples, natural
history and species identification, nature sketching, framing and debriefing effective
solo experiences, and connecting place-based learning to the curricular content
areas. This valid form of integrative practice, centered in Indigenous culture and
wisdom, recognizes that people are intimately interwoven and connected with their
traditional lands, and that directly cultivating this fundamental relationship can
shape and influence all areas of interaction with society, including social and envi-
ronmental well-being.

Justice-based activities. Engaging with environmental and social justice activities

was a significant part of my research training. For instance, during the last 10
years I have been involved in and introduced to a larger community, through par-
ticipation in social well-being and justice movements, such as the Idle No More,
Standing Rock, First Nations Land Rights, climate justice, and food sovereignty.
Through all these past and ongoing roles, I have learned a range of decolonizing
skills, including critical perspective from a community perspective, collaborative
decision-making, and management, and, perhaps most importantly, I have learned
how it is possible to transform ideas into practice through commitment and col-
laborative engagement.

Community activities. The most important lesson learned from my experience of

working with various Indigenous communities has been how to transform myself
from a science-oriented researcher to a participant-oriented researcher. For
instance, I was involved in an Indigenous collaborative science research project
16 Research Ethics 14(2)

with a Dene First Nation (FN) community in Saskatchewan, Canada. Using

autoethnography in this study, I had the opportunity to share and expand our
knowledge, and mentor, teach, and co-learn with K-12 FN students. I co-learned
and shared science and Indigenous governance with FN Elders, Knowledge-
holders, teachers, and students. I was also involved with Aboriginal youth in
Saskatoon public schools in developing a greater understanding of Aboriginal
perspectives in addressing the water crisis. In this study, we had the opportunity
to learn through community experience, share and expand our knowledge, and
mentor, teach, and co-learn with First Nation students and teachers from schools
in the public school division. As a research assistant, I was involved and con-
ducted research with homeless two-spirit/queer Indigenous people in urban
centers in Saskatchewan. My research activities included a literature review and
program/initiative scan of the various materials out there pertaining to two-
spirit/queer Indigenous people in Saskatchewan as well as a series of in-depth
interviews with four community service providers, I learned how to be empathic
in research, which I did not get in my Western research training.
All of the above issues played a vital role in transforming who I want to be as a
researcher. I learned how to decolonize myself from a science-oriented researcher
to an empathy-oriented researcher (Becker, 1967) who not only conducts research
for academic purposes but also creates critical and ethical research that is based on
solidarity.

Decolonizing research
Decolonization creates a significant opportunity to redefine the meaning of
research from and within the community. It connects participants and researcher
with all parts of the research as a collective and collaborative endeavor. I was able
to redefine the meaning of research in my PhD research with Laitu Khyeng
Indigenous community in Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT), Bangladesh. The mean-
ing of ‘researcher’ in my relational research was different than the Western mean-
ing of researcher. For example, using participatory action research (PAR) in my
PhD research, we (Elders, Knowledge-holders, and youth) redefined the meaning
of research through collaborative ways of conducting research, building collective
ownerships, doing collective data analysis, making collective presentations, and
publishing collectively.

Redefining interdisciplinary research. The concept of interdisciplinarity was confus-

ing for me until I received a decolonial form of research training through anti-
racist, land-based, and cross-cultural research training from Indigenous scholars,
educators, and activists. Through these decolonization processes, interdisciplinary
research training in environmental sustainability has become a prominent research
Datta 17

tool for many challenging issues of resource allocation, environmental manage-

ment, poverty, social justice, and globalization. The research becomes a form of
empowerment because of decolonization. Processes of decolonization helped me
to challenge interdisciplinary research that was not connected with practice by
reconfiguring the meaning of a community-based, interdisciplinary approach
(Datta, 2017). For me, interdisciplinary research involves meaningful involve-
ment and ethical relationships with participants. I argued elsewhere the first priori-
ties of interdisciplinary research in saying, ‘Special attention is given to the
community’s practice: how do community people deal with environmental mat-
ters, and in what way do they interact, communicate, understand, evaluate, and
manage the connections between their everyday needs and practices?’ (Datta,
2017: 2). The decolonial forms of interdisciplinary research objectives were inspir-
ing when choosing my PhD program in environmental sustainability.

Collaborative research. I learned how to conduct collaborative research with partici-

pants from my PhD research community Elders and Knowledge-holders. For exam-
ple, researcher and co-researcher participants conducted the research collaboratively
in the community. We decided together our research title; research questions and
research objectives were identified according to suggestions from Indigenous
Elders and Knowledge-holders. Community needs and voices were prioritized in
selecting our research topic and research questions. To redefine the meaning of
research for the community, research needs to be based on local knowledge, and
Elders and Knowledge-holders need to be included as a significant part of the
research. The researcher was identified as ‘we’, instead of an individual researcher.
The term ‘we’ included the researcher and all community participants as part of the
research; however, we gave more importance, respect, and honor to the community
Elders, Knowledge-holders, and leaders. According to our Elders and Knowledge-
holders’ suggestions, we created a research team with the university researcher and
four co-researcher participants from the community. These four co-researchers
(two female and two male researchers) were from various backgrounds. The first
co-researcher was a school teacher who had been working with community chil-
dren for a long time. The second co-researcher was a student leader who had been
involved with various Indigenous land, language, and education right movements.
The third co-researcher was a woman leader who had been involved with various
Indigenous women’s and land rights movements; she also led various land rights
movements in the community and beyond. The fourth co-researcher was a univer-
sity student who had been fighting for Indigenous education in the community and
nationally. According to community Elders and Knowledge-holders, diversity was
an important issue for the community. They thought that co-researchers from dif-
ferent backgrounds could cover different issues for the community. Although our
research team was created with a researcher and four co-researcher participants, we
18 Research Ethics 14(2)

were mostly guided by community Elders and Knowledge-holders. In each research

step, we followed community Elders and Knowledge-holders’ directions in our
research. Elders and Knowledge-holders should be considered to be researchers, as
Elders and Knowledge-holders are important parts of Indigenous culture because
of the traditional knowledge that they impart. They carry the traditional teachings,
the ceremonies, and the stories of all our relations. They are considered to be
Knowledge-keepers for the community (Datta, 2015). During my PhD research
(through PAR), I learned from conversations with Elders and Knowledge-holders
that academic researchers should be considered as learners instead of discoverers of
community knowledge as outsiders. We collectively talked and shared Elders’,
Knowledge-holders’, youths’, and other participants’ stories. We collectively wrote
our own learning reflections and other forms of writing. At the end of the study, our
writing was published as a book, for the first time in the Laitu Khyeng Indigenous
community.

Collective ownership. Collective ownership of our research was one of the impor-
tant differences from the Western form of research. Community Elders were
included as some of the main owners of our research findings. Elders had copies
of all the transcriptions, recordings, and our notes. Elders and Knowledge-holders
were the first owners of the research findings, and the paper and electronic copies
of our research findings and publications. Elders and Knowledge-holders were
included as researchers in conference presentation and journal publications (Datta
et al., 2015). We also asked community Elders and Knowledge-holders’ permis-
sion each time we presented our research and, if possible, we tried to invite them
to the presentation.

Collective data analysis. Collective data analysis was significant for the co-
researcher participants in understanding how their community’s oral stories were
transformed into a written format. Although our academic researcher was trained
for computer data analysis (i.e. Nvivo10 software), we intentionally did not use a
computer system because co-researcher participants, Elders, and Knowledge-
holders did not know how to use a computer. We manually selected themes from
our transcriptions, and we shared our themes with our Elders and Knowledge-
holders; they changed some themes and added new ones. This collaborative analy-
sis created a ceremony among us; we learned so much from our Elders and
Knowledge-holders.

Collective presentation. Collective presentation was an important part of centering

Indigenous voice in our research. For example, we collectively presented our
research in various places: first to the community Elders and Knowledge-holders,
collecting their feedback and incorporating it in our findings and then to the
Datta 19

community, collecting the community’s feedback. Once we received permission

from the community Elders and Knowledge-holders, we presented to the multina-
tional agencies (UNDP, UNSCO, and University), government ministries, and
policy-makers. We also collectively presented our research at four international
conferences and published in three international, peer-reviewed journals.

Building ongoing relationships. Our research is building ongoing community rela-

tionships. The current state education system creates a gap between community
youth and community Elders and Knowledge-holders as state education does not
respect the community’s traditional knowledge and practice. Elders said ‘[State]
educational institutions have stolen our children from us through mainstream edu-
cation. The State does not teach and respect our knowledge practice. Once our
children get state education, they cannot stay with us; they have to go to the city
and need to work for mainstream people.’ An Elder stated, ‘This research is differ-
ent from state education; we want this kind of research in our community.’ Like-
wise another Elder said, ‘With this research we can build relationships. We say
what we want in this form of research.’ Another Elder suggested, ‘I am hopeful for
this research and I look forward to working together again.’

Research is action. Research was not only a written paper for us. Rather, we con-
sidered research to be an ongoing action with the participants’ community. We
believed that with research we can speak up for our rights and justice and against
oppression. A Knowledge-holder said, ‘In this form of research, we can talk; we
can say, this is our work.’ Another Indigenous leader said, ‘I do not see this as
research. This is a new relationship tool for our community in which we can trust
and hope for positive change.’ An Elder said, ‘We are so happy about this research
commitment to our community. I have not seen this kind of commitment from
government and other researchers. This research and these researchers have taken
so much responsibility for our community. We really do want to see more of this
form of research in our community.’

Honor and respect cultural protocols. In conducting research with Indigenous com-
munities, the first priority should be on cultural protocols (Wilson, 2008). For
instance, during my research with Indigenous communities, participants com-
plained that researchers from governmental, non-governmental, and academic
institutions only cared about institutional priorities in their research protocols.
Strictly institutional protocols do not have enough respect for Indigenous culture,
practice, and Elders/Knowledge-holders’ knowledge. Participants identified these
forms of knowledge as different forms of oppressions of the community (Datta,
2016). For culturally appropriate research, the community’s protocol needs to be
followed strictly. When I had questions related to the research, such as who should
20 Research Ethics 14(2)

be included and what cultural protocols needed to be followed, the Elders and
Knowledge-holders were my first contact. All forms of protocols, oral and written,
should be followed. During my PhD research, based on community need, I prior-
itized community oral knowledge for my research protocols rather than the written
protocols from my research proposal.

Local knowledge is scientific. In my PhD research, I acknowledged that community

Elders, Knowledge-holders, and leaders are the main source of research, and their
knowledge is scientific (Lévi-Strauss, 1966; Little Bear, 2009). Anthropologist
Lévi-Strauss (1966) questioned that if traditional knowledge or any traditional
myth has been sustainable for so long to the community, why do we not as
researchers call this myth or traditional knowledge scientific? Indigenous scholar
Little Bear (2009) explained that Indigenous Elders and Knowledge-holders are
important scientific Knowledge-holders for their community. He also suggested
that we as researchers need to redefine our meaning of science from the commu-
nity’s perspective. As the Indigenous community has been living sustainably on
their land for centuries, their traditional knowledge, culture, and practice are also
sustainable. In our research, we acknowledged that community Elders and
Knowledge-holders had knowledge of how to do research according to Indige-
nous research protocol. According to community Elders and Knowledge-holders,
Western academic research and traditional knowledge can together build a sig-
nificant knowledge bridge for the community. However, community Elders and
Knowledge-holders clearly articulated that when building a bridge between
Indigenous knowledge and Western research, Indigenous knowledge should be
considered equal to scientific knowledge. Indigenous Elders and Knowledge-
holders also said that if Indigenous knowledge is used as a Western research tool,
Indigenous sustainable knowledge will be lost, and they did not want this to
happen.

Conclusion
My decolonization journey was not easy; however, I consider my decolonization
journey as my ceremony (Wilson, 2008), which forced me to rethink not only my
research but also challenged who I am and what I should do as a researcher when
working with participants. From my decolonization process, I understood that,
although Western quantitative and qualitative research methodology, methods,
and research tools were helpful throughout this process, their principles were chal-
lenging. Through my 15 years’ experience working with various Indigenous com-
munities, I learned that research without decolonizing can exploit the community.
Therefore, decolonizing both research and researchers is the first step when con-
ducting research with an Indigenous community (Simpson, 2001; Smith, 2009;
Wilson, 2008).
Datta 21

My research training as a ceremony became my relational responsibility to

myself, my family, my community, and my participants. Therefore, the mean-
ing of research and researchers is to me a continuous form of decolonization.
The term ‘decolonization’ to me as a researcher means becoming, learning,
and taking responsibility for participants. In this process, the researcher should
not only learn from community participants but should also consider partici-
pants as educators, scientific Knowledge-holders, and owners of the knowl-
edge. My cross-cultural identity and socialization, unique interdisciplinary
education, research skills, and passion for understanding Western methodo-
logical challenges helped me to decolonize my research training and trans-
formed who I wanted to be.
My decolonization created a space to embrace ways of challenging and counter-
ing acts of oppression while advancing Indigenous knowledge(s), perspectives,
histories, experiences, spirituality, and realities. It also incorporates and bridges
Western and Indigenous research, with people learning to challenge past wrongs
and restoring participants’ voice in a show of respect, reciprocity, and responsibil-
ity. I realize the importance of decolonization that can be culturally appropriate,
respectful, honoring, and careful of the local people for building an appropriate
collaborative approach between Western and Indigenous research. I hope my
decolonization stories may inspire other researchers to transform themselves, not
only to be participant-oriented researchers but also to take inspiration from how
they can be empowered by their research.

Acknowledgements
First and foremost, I want to thank my mentors, advisors, and PhD supervisors Drs Marcia
McKenzie, Dr Alex Wilson, and Dr Verna St Danis for their continuous inspiration, moti-
vation, and support in my decolonization processes. I am also grateful to the Laitu Khyeng
Indigenous Elders, Knowledge-holders, leaders, and youth participants who so warmly
welcomed me to the community and provided opportunities to learn their land–water
management and sustainability stories. I am also enormously grateful to my four co-
researcher participants – Nyojy U Khyang, Hla Kray Prue Khyang, Hla Aung Prue
Kheyang, and Mathui Ching Khyang – for joining in this research team and for their con-
tinuous support.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
All articles in Research Ethics are published as open access. There are no submission charges
and no Article Processing Charges as these are fully funded by institutions through Knowledge
Unlatched, resulting in no direct charge to authors. For more information about Knowledge
Unlatched please see here: http://www.knowledgeunlatched.org
22 Research Ethics 14(2)

Notes
1. The term ‘Western’ refers to a mind-set, a worldview that is a product of the development
of European culture and diffused into other nations like North America. As the dominant
meaning system, Western discourse is the primary expression of that culture (Minnich,
1990). Western is representative of an archive of knowledge and systems, rules, and
values extracted from and characteristic of Europe and the Western hemisphere (Smith,
1999: 42).
2. The term ‘disciplinary research training’ refers to controlled knowledge practice with
hierarchically organized scientific and technological projects (Datta, 2017; Haraway,
2004). Feminist scholar Donna Haraway (1996) explains it as controlled knowledge by
continuing to work away at the themes of science, technology, and knowledge as social
practices with real consequences. She argues that this form of knowledge training is not
only insufficient, but also sporadic to explain the reality.
3. The term ‘community’ is used to refer to the system of relationships within Indigenous
societies in which the nature of personhood is identified. This system of relationships not
only includes family but also extends to comprise the relationships of human, ecological,
and spiritual origin (Datta, 2016). Community is a structure of support mechanisms that
include the personal responsibility for the collective and, reciprocally, the collective con-
cern for individual existence. Cajete (1994: 164) suggests that ‘community is the place
where the forming of the heart and face of the individual as one of the people is most fully
expressed’.

References
Ahmed B (2012) Margin, minorities and a political economy of displacement: The Chittagong
Hill Tracts of Bangladesh. In: Ganguly-Scarse R and Lahiri-Dutt K (eds) Rethinking
Displacement: Asia Pacific Perspectives. Farnham: Ashgate, 173–194.
Battiste M (2000) Maintaining aboriginal identity, languages, and culture in modern society.
In: Battiste M (ed.) Reclaiming Indigenous Voice and Vision. Vancouver: University of
British Columbia Press, 192–208.
Battiste M (2001) Decolonizing the university: Ethical guidelines for research involving indig-
enous populations. In: Findlay LM and Bidwell PM (eds) Pursuing Academic Freedom:
“Free and Fearless”? Saskatoon, SK: Purich Press, 190–203.
Battiste M (2008) Research ethics for protecting Indigenous knowledge and heritage:
Institutional and researcher responsibilities. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS and Tuhiwai
Smith L (eds) Handbook of Critical and Indigenous Methodologies. Berkeley, CA: SAGE,
497–509.
Battiste M (2017) Decolonial ways of knowing and doing at Banglar Gann O Katha
at CFCR 90.5 Saskatoon Radio Program. Available at: https://drive.google.com/
file/d/0B68It2SOL0p5U0NRVGpCMlU3SlE/viewhttps://drive.google.com/file/
d/0B68It2SOL0p5U0NRVGpCMlU3SlE/view (accessed 13 March 2017).
Becker H (1967) Whose side are we on? Social Problems 14(3): 234–247.
Beld JM (1994) Constructing a collaboration: A conversation with Egon G. Guba and Yvonna
S. Lincoln. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 7(2): 99–115.
Cajete G (1994) Look to the Mountain: An Ecology of Indigenous Education. Skyland, NC:
Kivaki Press.
Caldwell K, Henshaw L and Taylor G (2005) Developing a framework for critiquing health
research. Journal of Health, Social and Environmental Issues 6(1): 45–53.
Datta 23

Cochran PAL, Marshall CA and Garcia-Downing C et al. (2008) Indigenous ways of know-
ing: Implications for participatory research and community. American Journal of Public
Health 98(1): 22–27.
Datta R (2015) A relational theoretical framework and meanings of land, nature, and sustain-
ability for research with Indigenous communities. Local Environment: The International
Journal of Justice and Sustainability 20(1): 102–113.
Datta R (2016) Rethinking environmental science education from Indigenous knowledge per-
spectives: An experience with a Dene First Nation community. Environmental Education
Research, doi: 10.1080/13504622.2016.1219980.
Datta R (2017) Practice-based interdisciplinary approach and environmental research.
Environments 4(22), doi: 10.3390/environments4010022.
Datta R, Khyang UN, Khyang HKP, Kheyang HAP, Khyang MC and Chapola J (2015)
Participatory action research and researcher’s responsibilities: An experience with
Indigenous community. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 18(6):
581–599.
Denzin N and Norman K (2007) The secret Downing Street memo, the One Percent Doctrine,
and the politics of truth: A performance text. Symbolic Interaction 30(4): 447–464.
Denzin NK, Lincoln YS and Smith LT (eds) (2008) Handbook of Critical and Indigenous
Methodologies. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Dodson M (1994) The Wentworth Lecture—The End in the Beginning. Australian Aboriginal
Studies No. 1. Canberra, Australia: Aboriginal Studies Press.
Haraway D (1996) Modest_Witness@Second_Millennium.FemaleMan©_Meets_Onco
Mouse™: Feminism and Technoscience. New York: Routledge.
Haraway D (2004) The Haraway Reader. New York: Routledge.
King T (2003) The Truth About Stories. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Kovach M (2010) Indigenous Methodologies. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.
Latour B (2004) Polities of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy (Porter C,
trans.). London: Harvard University Press.
Lavallée L (2009) Practical application of an Indigenous research framework and Indigenous
research methods: Sharing circles and Anishnaabe symbol-based reflection. International
Journal of Qualitative Methods 8(1): 21–40. Available at: http://ejournals.library.ualberta.
ca/index.php/IJQM/article/view/943/5195 (accessed 28 April 2017).
Lévi-Strauss C (1966) The Savage Mind. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson.
Lincoln YS (1995) Emerging criteria for quality in qualitative and interpretive inquiry.
Qualitative Inquiry 1(3): 275–289.
Little Bear L (2009) Jagged worldviews colliding. In: Battiste M (ed.) Reclaiming Indigenous
Voice and Vision. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Press, 7–85.
Lowan-Trudeau G (2012) Methodological metissage: An interpretive Indigenous approach
to environmental education research. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education 17:
113–130.
Minnich EK (1990) Transforming Knowledge. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Moje EB (2000) Changing our minds, changing our bodies: Power as embodied in research
relations. Qualitative Studies in Education 13(1): 15–42.
Petts J, Owens S and Bulkeley H (2008) Crossing boundaries: Interdisciplinarity in the con-
text of urban environments. Geoforum 39 (2008): 593–601.
Simonds VW and Christopher S (2013) Adapting western methods to Indigenous contexts.
American Journal of Public Health 103(12): 2185–2192.
24 Research Ethics 14(2)

Simpson L (2001) Aboriginal peoples and knowledge: Decolonizing our processes. Canadian
Journal of Native Studies 21(1): 137–148.
Smith LT (1999) Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. London:
Zed Books.
Smith LT (2008) On tricky ground: Researching the native in the age of uncertainty. In:
Denzin NK and Lincoln YS (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Smith LT (2009) On tricky ground: Researching the native in the age of uncertainty. In:
Denzin NK and Lincoln YS (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Smith LT (2012) Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples (2nd edn).
London, UK: University of Otago Press.
Tuck E and Yang KW (2012) Decolonization is not a metaphor. Decolonization: Indigeneity,
Education & Society 1(1): 1–40.
Tuck E and Yang KW (2014) R-words: Refusing research. In: Paris D and Winn MT (eds)
Humanizing Research: Decolonizing Qualitative Inquiry with Youth and Communities.
Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 223–247.
Wildcat M, McDonald M, Irlbacher-Fox S and Coulthard G (2014) Learning from the
land: Indigenous land based pedagogy and decolonization. Decolonization: Indigeneity,
Education & Society 3(3): I–XV.
Wilson S (2008) Research is Ceremony: Indigenous Research Methods. Winnipeg, MB:
Fernwood.
Zavala M (2013) What do we mean by decolonizing research strategies? Lessons from decol-
onizing Indigenous research projects in New Zealand and Latin America. Decolonization:
Indigeneity, Education & Society 2(1): 55–71.